How responsible was Zakir Naik for the Dhaka attack?

JULY 13 — Last April, Zakir Naik’s presence in Malaysia caused a stir. He is a preacher known for his abrasive style which tends to offend people of other religious persuasions.

The Malaysian government, with its dire need to win support from Muslims, feted Zakir and even offered him an island! So much for their powers of discernment.

Then on June 28th, Bangladesh suffered another terrorist attack. It had been the victim of microterrorism several times already with attacks on liberals, secularist and atheist figures but the June 28th attack was by far the most violent.

Twenty people died and reportedly in the most brutal way. I am also saddened because the terrorists used Quran recitations as a means of verifying who was Muslim.

However, two Muslims who could have escaped refused to do so and died. I do not believe in martyrdom but if I did, these two are the real martyrs while the Jihadists were the cowardly fools who attacked innocent civilians.

It has since emerged that at least two of the Dhaka attackers were keen followers of Zakir Naik. Currently, he is being investigated and there is a possibility of him being banned. So here is the question of the day: How responsible was Zakir Naik for the Dhaka attacks?

We need to break this question down into two parts – one, was he directly responsible and two, was he indirectly responsible? This is not a matter of obfuscation but rather honesty. It is not a simple issue we are pondering. A man’s reputation and indeed his liberty is at stake.

In terms of direct responsibility, one particular video suggests Zakir is guilty. In that video, he says that all Muslims should terrorise the terrorist whom he identifies as America. What exactly did he mean by this? What does he mean “to terrorise”? Through acts of violence or some other means (America was also terrorised by the oil embargo in the 70s!) ? And to whom was he referring when he says “America”? Was he referring to the American people? These ambiguous statements may have been misunderstood by the Dhaka Jihadis.

To be fair to Zakir, there is another video of his that shows him loudly saying that terrorism is not Islamic. In this video, he correctly defines jihad as the struggle to bring peace to humanity. Had the Dhaka Jihadis watched this video as well but disagreed with Zakir? Was Zakir contradicting himself? These are the questions we need to ask.

But what about indirect responsibility? By “indirect responsibility”, I am asking if Zakir’s preaching did in fact create the confrontational and even combative mentality which eventually pushed these Jihadis over the edge? In those terms, then yes. If they were his followers, I would hold him very responsible.

Why is he indirectly responsible for the Dhaka attacks? Quite simply because Zakir is a fundamentalist. A fundamentalist is one who sees religious texts without any kind of interpretative consideration.

In other words, whatever he gathers from the text (and this is important: he himself is an interpreter although he seems to forget this fact), that becomes what “Islam teaches.” Zakir uses this phrase so callously in his lectures that it is no wonder that he causes fundamentalism.

Next, Zakir’s affinity for Islamofascist teachings. Zakir has loudly declared that Muslim children have no need to study other religions. Why would they since they already have the truth? This kind of exclusivist, supremacist mentality tends to see Islam as a finished product and not the dynamic system it was meant to be.

Zakir also agrees with the idea that the Quran approves of sexual slavery. This idea was a medieval misinterpretation by Islamofascists in order to carry out their nefarious activities.

Zakir did not analyse the term as used in the Quran but rather simply adopted Islamofascist interpretations. This is another teaching which the so-called Islamic State operatives are extremely fond of, for obvious reasons. Zakir’s agreement with them could have influenced the Dhaka attackers as well.

Finally, Zakir does not allow Muslims to leave Islam freely. If they leave Islam, fine he says, but they must not preach against Islam and divulge state secrets. This shows his blatant discrimination.

Why is it all right for him to preach to people of other faiths and have them convert to Islam? How is leaving Islam relevant to divulging state secrets? Does Islam have any secret teachings which people should not know of? These are the absurdities which Zakir Naik preaches which become dangerous in the hands of mindless and reckless youth.

Zakir Naik is now under investigation. Already Malaysian Islamofascists all across the board are loudly crying foul. Perkasa have called for Muslims to defend him. PAS’ Tuan Ibrahim Tuan Man expressed support as well. The Muftis of Perak and Selangor, Harussani Zakaria and Tamyes Abdul Wahid, respectively claimed that Zakir was misunderstood and that this was a conspiracy against “Islam.”

Having said all the above, I do not agree to the banning of Zakir Naik. Banning him would make him even more popular with these youth. He would be akin to a religious marijuana, if you will. Rather I feel the Indian government should unleash its thinkers upon him. Have them debate Zakir openly and show that Zakir’s rhetoric is nothing more than fascist delusions which has nothing to do with Islam.

* This is the personal opinion of the columnist.

– See more at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/opinion/farouk-a.-peru/article/how-responsible-was-zakir-naik-for-the-dhaka-attack#sthash.QJDIU6YY.dpuf

**Farouk A. Peru is a human being in the world. That is where his discourse begins and ends. His thought systems may be found atwww.farouk.name and he tweets @farouk_a_peru.